Vancouver’s plan to create a public bike system should surprise no one. This is, after all, a city in love with bicycles, and I do not mean as a result of Vision Vancouver’s almost pathological fixation with anything on two wheels.
Walk down any street, watch from any SkyTrain car, observe from any office tower and you will likely not have to wait long before someone on a bike goes by. Long before Vision’s council started putting in separated bike lanes on Hornby and Dunsmuir this was a city that loved the look of thin pneumatic tires.
Gracious, we even have a thriving bike rental industry in the downtown core for all those tourists who want to pedal around Stanley Park and to and from their boutique hotels. We have a pocket textile industry that makes or designs rainwear and carryalls for bikes, and it has become de rigeur for companies offering vehicle parking privileges to also have a bike parking lot. At The Sun we certainly do.
So when Vancouver council on Wednesday got nearly misty-eyed over the idea of putting 1,500 Quebec-made BIXI bikes in 125 on-street stations, there were some people who were saying “what took you so long.” In fact, this story has become the story most commented on today on our website, showing just how passionate people are about the issue. (See the city’s .pdf report here.)
There are, to be sure, a lot of people who wonder whether council’s bicycle fixation is bordering on addiction, especially when this new enterprise is going to require a taxpayer subsidy of at least $1.9 million a year for the next 10 years.
Bike-lovers are quick to point out that the true cost of all forms of transportation is subsidized by taxpayers, whether it be private auto, bus, motorcycles or Shank’s Mare. After all, building roads and bridges and sidewalks on public land is expensive. Frankly, I think that’s a specious argument since there are greater societal issues at play that offset any such subsidy: commerce, goods movement, livability. Heck, we started building sidewalks after people got tired of getting their shoes muddy and roads as a way of trading with and defending one another. We collectively agreed that such infrastructure was good for city-building.
I heard from readers on several fronts: questioning why the city was giving the contract to Oregon-based Alta Bike Share, which will contract with BIXI, rather than finding a Canadian company; the issue of subsidies, and on B.C.’s helmet law as it applies to bikes. On the first and last issues I’ll write later, but on the case of subsidies I received this interesting note from Dave Godin, a Westcoaster temporarily living in Toronto, who thought The Sun was applying a negative “editorial lens” to the PBS decision.
He pointed out (as I did in my story) that many, many cities are now using or exploring the use of public bike systems. Here’s an edited version of his note:

What Vancouver is pursuing has already been thoroughly tested in cities large and small throughout the world and they have proven to be valued additions to the mobility options available to citizens and visitors alike. This is not a radical idea. Frankly, Vancouver is arriving late to the party.

“While it is rarely acknowledged, it is a fact that there is some form of public subsidy embedded in the infrastructure and operation of every single mode of travel; sidewalks, roads, bridges, highways, bicycle lanes, buses, subways, trains, ferries, airports, etc. These subsidies include underwriting much of the cost of building, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure, such as maintenance on SkyTrain track, filling potholes on roads, adding left-turn lanes, installing crosswalk signals, seismically upgrading bridges, or rebuilding cracked sidewalks. These subsidies can also appear to be indirect, such as the salaries of engineers who monitor our roads and bridges, police officers that enforce the rules of the road, or the tremendous health care costs and lost productivity to businesses that are associated with the injury and death caused by motor vehicle collisions.
“I think it is an editorial double standard to routinely and negatively highlight the subsidy associated with cycling as a mode of travel, whether it is a PBS system or building bicycle lanes, while at the same time so rarely applying the same critical editorial lens to the subsidy associated with our road and highway system. Reporting on investment in road and highway infrastructure is routinely done in lock-step with the assertion that the investments will improve road safety, personal mobility, and strive to alleviate congestion for the motoring public. Why does reporting of investment in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure routinely fail to link active transportation to public health benefits, extremely cost-effective mobility, greater safety for all street users, and the freedom to chose one’s mode of travel within a city?

I assert that this editorial lens negatively influences public opinion towards improvements in cycling and pedestrian modes of travel. The routine failure to present the well-established rationale for encouraging greater rates of walking and cycling makes achieving these goals harder for interested citizens, adds political cost for our elected officials, directs greater ire towards public servants, fosters animosity from drivers towards walkers and cyclists, and it hurts the motoring public, which directly benefits through reduced competition for finite road space when people have the ability to chose to travel by something other than an automobile.

In response I pointed out to Godin that I think he’s wrong on some fronts. Here’s my note:

“I was clear to point out that this is being done in a number of other cities, that subsidies are a case in every one, and that – through Jerry Dobrovolny – there are significant public benefits to be derived from altering the mode split for cars vs public transit, including PBS.
For me not to tell you how much taxpayers will pay for this service would be wrong. You will notice that in almost ALL stories involving city hall and public policy issues, the question of “how much” is always germane, regardless of whether it is a swimming program, road construction project, cost of city administration or grant to a non-profit group. When it involves a broad public policy discussion that involves services that might well be offered by private groups or businesses, not telling you how much would generate 100x more criticism.”

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.